The Travesty that is the NBA MVP Award

Yankees · Post by **Yankees** » Tue May 06, 2008 8:52 am

So the NBA MVP Award is going to someone that took the first 20 games of the season off. As a Celtic fan I'd love to say KG was the MVP, but he got the award he deserved.

Chris Paul, with regards to the two above, is the MVP of the NBA this year. Without Chris Paul, the Hornets would be battling it out with the Grizz. I truly hope basketball fans are enjoying this kid, because he will go down as the best point guard of our lifetimes when he hangs them up.

He controls the tempo of the game better then any pure PG since Isiah. He has ridiculous knowledge of where his players are on the court, and if they are in their best position to score. He'll pass up getting Tyson Chandler an 8-footer to get David West a 17-footer, because he knows the latter is more often going in - everyone else on the planet's gut reaction is to get it to the guy closer.

In the playoffs, he's put up a 35/10, 32/17, 16/10, 24/15, 17/13, and 20/12 games in leading the Hornets to a 6-1 record against two outstanding basketball teams.

If you have not, please check this kid out. The best part is that he's an awesome human being too. He's done more to help rebuild New Orleans then just about anyone - and that's on and off the court. Not only has he given tirelessly to the NO community, but he's also simultaneously saved basketball in one of the greatest cities in the world.

RedSox · Post by **RedSox** » Tue May 06, 2008 9:05 am

Really good player, but I stopped following him after he punched that guy in the nuts.

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Tue May 06, 2008 9:08 am

Brett you are a Greek God. An Adonis among men.

Yankees · Post by **Yankees** » Tue May 06, 2008 9:45 am

Ok, didn't really want to get into this - but this is NOT the NBA's fault. Howard Schulz sold the team to Clay Bennett. What could the NBA possibly do in this situation?

No one talks about it, but the lease the Sonics have with the city is a GUARANTEED loss of money, no matter how well the team does on the court. Schulz sold when he realized this. The city and the arena won't negotiate the lease, and they won't rebuild a stadium to help the team turn a profit. The team lost $20 million this year with a shaved payroll - and losses across the next two years with an inflation in salary could get upwards of $60 million. I don't care how rich you are, you just can't be losing $80 million over 3 years. If the city and arena are not willing to rebuild the stadium, and they are not able to renegotiate a lease that is workable for both sides - then what the fuck can Bennett and the NBA do?

Schulz and the other potential ownership group jumped back in when they knew there was no shot just for good PR. With a decent lease, the team is worth at least 2x-3x then what it is in Seattle - regardless of how good the market is.

Bennett may have dicked with the people of Seattle, but he inherited an impossible situation. The city of Seattle, to their credit, has done an outstanding job of drumming up pity in the face of the out-of-towner with an agenda and the big, bad NBA - but if the city and arena aren't willing to hold up their end of the bargain to have an NBA team, then another city will. Trust me, Stern does not want to lose Seattle as a market - but it's an untenable situation as is.

Tigers · Post by **Tigers** » Tue May 06, 2008 11:35 am

Royals wrote:Ok, didn't really want to get into this - but this is NOT the NBA's fault. Howard Schulz sold the team to Clay Bennett. What could the NBA possibly do in this situation?

No one talks about it, but the lease the Sonics have with the city is a GUARANTEED loss of money, no matter how well the team does on the court. Schulz sold when he realized this. The city and the arena won't negotiate the lease, and they won't rebuild a stadium to help the team turn a profit. The team lost $20 million this year with a shaved payroll - and losses across the next two years with an inflation in salary could get upwards of $60 million. I don't care how rich you are, you just can't be losing $80 million over 3 years. If the city and arena are not willing to rebuild the stadium, and they are not able to renegotiate a lease that is workable for both sides - then what the fuck can Bennett and the NBA do?

Schulz and the other potential ownership group jumped back in when they knew there was no shot just for good PR. With a decent lease, the team is worth at least 2x-3x then what it is in Seattle - regardless of how good the market is.

Bennett may have dicked with the people of Seattle, but he inherited an impossible situation. The city of Seattle, to their credit, has done an outstanding job of drumming up pity in the face of the out-of-towner with an agenda and the big, bad NBA - but if the city and arena aren't willing to hold up their end of the bargain to have an NBA team, then another city will. Trust me, Stern does not want to lose Seattle as a market - but it's an untenable situation as is.

That's not entirely true Brett. The Sonics didn't lose money even with that horrible lease in 2004/2005 when they went to the playoffs. Put a good product on the floor and an owner can at least break-even, even with that shitty Key Arena lease.

That second part isn't true either Brett. The City has offered to discuss renegotiating the Sonics lease in order to make it work for both the owner and the City. The problem is, Clay Bennett never intended to keep the team in Seattle when he bought it, so the only thing he's wanted to talk tot he City about is buying out the lease, he doesn't want to talk about a renegotiation of the lease.

The "Shaved Payroll" isn't exactly the full story there Brett. When an ownership group buys a franchise, sells off its most marketable players and then completely alienates a 41 year old fan base before the season even starts, it isn't exactly going to result in generating positive fan interest in your team. The Sonics lost $20MM this season, because they put a shitty product on the court, they alienated their fan base before the season even started and they've been threatening the local politicians with "If you don't give us what we want we're going to take our team and leave" ever since they bought the team.

There are a lot of people at fault as to why the Sonics might be moving, Schultz and the Washingt on State Legislature is just as much at fault as Clay Bennett and his frachise hijacking Oklahomans, but lets not kid ourselves here Brett, for the NBA and David Stern this has always been about and will always be about the NBA creating more leverage in order to blackmail cities into giving them the largest most extravagant tax payer funded arena's they can get. Nothing more, nothing less.

The Bottom line is, Stern has an agenda, as I mentioned above. He came to Washington two year's ago and made a half hearted attempt to get the Washington Legislature to back Shultz's planned remodel of Key Arena. The Washington Legislature didn't give him the time of day, because the propose basically included the tax players paying 90+% of the deal. Schultz and Stern got their feelings hurt, because they presented a half ass prosposal and thought it would fly. In order to get back at the State, Schultz sold to Bennett. Bennett knew exactly what he was getting into when he bought the Sonics, he knew he had David Stern's backing to take the team and leave and he thought he could just sneak in, make another half assed proposal to the Washington Legislature for a $500MM Taj Mahal that he knew would never fly, and then when the Legislature didn't give his proposal the time of day, he figured he could just make the city an offer to buy out the lease and he'd be able to steal the team away to Oklahoma City. It hasn't exactly worked out that way for him.

Clay Bennett never had any intention of keeping the Sonics in Seattle when he bought the team, that has become plainly obvous. David Stern knew Clay Bennett never had any intentions of keeping the team in Seattle. David Stern hasn't done a damn thing to try and make it work for the Sonics in Seattle, since he made his half assed presentation to the Washington State Legislature two years ago and got his feelings hurt.

I don't care how rich you are, you just can't be losing $80 million over 3 years. If the city and arena are not willing to rebuild the stadium, and they are not able to renegotiate a lease that is workable for both sides - then what the fuck can Bennett and the NBA do?

Hate to say it Brett, but that sounds like someone spewing the Company Line, if I've ever heard it.

Steve Balmer (Microsoft) has offered to buy the Sonics from Clay Bennett and has offered to put $150MM toward a Key Arena remodel that would work for both the City, the NBA and for him. Clay Bennett doesn't want to sell, because his intention from the start was to blow the thing up in Seattle so he could take the Sonics to Oklahoma City. What Bennett and the NBA can do, if they ever had any intention of keeping the Sonics in Seattle would be to sell the Sonics to one of the richest men in the world who has offered to buy the team.

The problem is, that doesn't fit with Clay Bennett's original intentions and doesn't fit with David Stern's strategy to blackmail more tax payer money from other cities.

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Tue May 06, 2008 12:37 pm

Sorry, but expecting the City or State to pay for a new Arena is HORSESHIT. it's horseshit in Seattle and it's horseshit in any other place. There is so much damn money beign made in pro sports there is no excuse whatsoever for a team not building their own facility. If a tightwad, cock-sucking, douchebag jerk-off sonuvabitch like Jeremy Jacobs can pull it off in one of the most expensive construction markets in the country, then ANY team can pull it off.

The NBA has to approve the move for it to happen, right? If they do, then THEY are responsible for that decision. Just as the Sonics are responsible for being too fucking cheap to build their own arena and for signing the lease with Key Arena IN THE FIRST PLACE!

Oh, and Brett if you're making "2x-3x then what it is in Seattle" and what you're getting in Seattle is a loss (which, frankly, I don't believe. There are entirely too many accounting tricks to pull off for me to buy that) then you're going to be getting 2-3x the loss.

I'm with Brennan here, this is an attempt to show other cities that the NBA will pull their team if they don't buy them new arenas. It's horseshit and it's wrong and everyone knows it.

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Tue May 06, 2008 12:40 pm

I don't care how rich you are, you just can't be losing $80 million over 3 years. If the city and arena are not willing to rebuild the stadium, and they are not able to renegotiate a lease that is workable for both sides - then what the fuck can Bennett and the NBA do?

How about... Build their own fucking stadium?

How about... Swallow the pill you asked for? Bennet knew the lease was there, he's legally bound to it, begging out is a bitch move.

Yankees · Post by **Yankees** » Tue May 06, 2008 12:43 pm

I can promise you that the Sonics, regardless of what they said, have not made money since they started that lease. 75% of ALL pro sports teams who say they turned a profit do not turn a profit.

The bad guy in this situation is Schulz - not Bennett or the NBA. If Schulz cared enough about the team, as opposed to posturing about it now, he wouldn't have sold it to the first offer. Schulz, a pretty frikkin' savvy businessman, saw that the situation wasn't going to work and he sold. It's not like the arena was ever going to let the Sonics out of that deal, and then they were never going to sign a MUCH better deal. The stadium itself is not good enough to turn a profit for an NBA team - so if no one is to give them a good lease, and no one is going to rebuild - then what on earth could they possibly do?

Bennett saw the UNBELIEVABLE success of basketball in his hometown of OKC and took the opportunity to bring a team back there. He made the asshole move of posturing like he was staying in Seattle - which was a horrible move on his part - I admit.

You can say what you want about Balmer, but he knew he had no shot - he just wanted to look like he's making a heroes attempt. If he truly wanted this team he would have stepped up when this all started. It's easy to make yourself look good when the team's 94% in OKC.

And don't bitch about a "shaved payroll" - that's what happened - but there's no way that team was winning anything built around Allen and Lewis. Getting Green and Durant and like 1,000 1st round picks was the right way to go with that team. They are setting themselves up for tremendous long-term success - too bad it won't be in Seattle.

Tigers · Post by **Tigers** » Tue May 06, 2008 2:29 pm

Royals wrote:I can promise you that the Sonics, regardless of what they said, have not made money since they started that lease. 75% of ALL pro sports teams who say they turned a profit do not turn a profit.

You should stick to marketing and sales. If you want guarantees, I'll give you a more accurate one. I can guarantee you the former Sonics owners, also wrote off anywhere from $15 million to $40 million in depreciation and amortization expense every year since they bought it in 2001. For the non-finacial dudes out there, that is $15 million to $40 million in Non-Cash expenses. Professional Sports teams use this tactic all the time to underreport their financial performance to the public.

The bad guy in this situation is Schulz - not Bennett or the NBA.

Shultz is just as guilty in this whole scenario as Bennett and Stern are, but don't go acting like Clay Bennett and David Stern are just as slimy. David Stern has had an agenda with the Sonics ever since he came to Olympia to to try and get a $200 million remodel of Key Arena approved for Howard Shutlz. After Stern and Shultz got their assess handed to them Stern has been doing everything he can to stick it to the State of Washington. In addition, Stern's bigger agenda is to get the Sonics out of Seattle, so every other owership that is trying to blackmail their cities into providing a new Tax Payer funded arena can say, "Hey, if you don't give me what I want, then I'll take the team somewhere else. Just look at what happened to Seattle." David Stern's agenda in Seattle has been to create more leverage for all the other owners in the league and improve their leverage in negotiating sweetheart taxpayer funded deals from other cities.

If Schulz cared enough about the team, as opposed to posturing about it now, he wouldn't have sold it to the first offer.

You are just flat out wrong there Brett. Shutlz didn't sell to the first offer he got.

Schulz, a pretty frikkin' savvy businessman, saw that the situation wasn't going to work and he sold.

Actually, he gave up after one half assed effort in Olympia.

It's not like the arena was ever going to let the Sonics out of that deal, and then they were never going to sign a MUCH better deal. The stadium itself is not good enough to turn a profit for an NBA team - so if no one is to give them a good lease, and no one is going to rebuild - then what on earth could they possibly do?

That's a pretty big leap of faith given the City has offered to renegotiate the lease. The problem from the City's side has always been Shultz wanted the tax payers to pay for the whole remodel......Shultz's group didn't want to put hardly any money into the deal themselves.

Bennett saw the UNBELIEVABLE success of basketball in his hometown of OKC and took the opportunity to bring a team back there. He made the asshole move of posturing like he was staying in Seattle - which was a horrible move on his part - I admit.

Yes, Bennett did lie through his teeth and had included in the sale provisions that could end up costing him the team in the long run. So far it has landed his ass in court and he won't be moving the Sonics anywhere for another two seasons from the looks of it. Bennett should cut his losses while he can, because the City's attorneys are kicking Bennett's butt in the pre-trial discovery phase right now.

You can say what you want about Balmer, but he knew he had no shot - he just wanted to look like he's making a heroes attempt. If he truly wanted this team he would have stepped up when this all started. It's easy to make yourself look good when the team's 94% in OKC.

It sounds like you are spewing David Stern's lines again. The last thing Balmer needs is to put out a fake effort in order to "garner" goodwill in th community. Balmer has more goodwill in this community than he needs in 10 lifetimes.

And don't bitch about a "shaved payroll" - that's what happened - but there's no way that team was winning anything built around Allen and Lewis. Getting Green and Durant and like 1,000 1st round picks was the right way to go with that team. They are setting themselves up for tremendous long-term success - too bad it won't be in Seattle.

I wasn't bitching about "shaved payroll" mearly pointing out how you chose to leave the more important part of the story out, while claiming that the lease was the primarily reason the Sonics lost money this season. While everyone recognizes the lease is crappy, the real reason the Sonics lost money is that they chose to blow up the franchise in the offseason and get rid of the face of the franchise, while putting a crappy current product on the court. They also managed to alienate the entire fanbase prior to the start of the season by telling everyone in the world who would listen that they were going to move the team if the State didn't use tax payer money to build them the $500 million Taj Mahal that they wanted. I'd say that played a much bigger role in the Sonics financial losses this season than the their poor lease.

Yankees · Post by **Yankees** » Tue May 06, 2008 3:21 pm

David Stern has had an agenda with the Sonics ever since he came to Olympia to to try and get a $200 million remodel of Key Arena approved for Howard Shutlz. After Stern and Shultz got their assess handed to them Stern has been doing everything he can to stick it to the State of Washington. In addition, Stern's bigger agenda is to get the Sonics out of Seattle, so every other owership that is trying to blackmail their cities into providing a new Tax Payer funded arena can say, "Hey, if you don't give me what I want, then I'll take the team somewhere else. Just look at what happened to Seattle."

If people believe this then I have a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you. Believe it or not the NBA would RATHER have a team in Seattle then OKC. It's a 10x better market - anyone in the NBA will tell you that. The problem is that the Key is not an NBA arena, and the team has the worst lease in the NBA. That's not a good combination. No person in their right mind would want to shell out the money to remodel if they can get the taxpayers to do it. It's a bit assholish and manipulative, but it's the truth that anyone would tell you. Bennett is a slimeball though, I'll certainly admit that.

You are just flat out wrong there Brett. Shutlz didn't sell to the first offer he got.

No, but he sold to the first reasonable offer he got without allowing anyone else from the Seattle community to match the bid. He just made Bennett make a half-hearted promise to "try and make it work."

Actually, he gave up after one half assed effort in Olympia.

You can think what you want - and I think Schulz is a douche in this situation - but I promise you that VERY smart people at the NBA were running batteries upon batteries of financial and mathmatical tests to see if this could work for an owner with that lease. ALL of them came out to say that it did not work. The NBA handed over hundreds of pages to the city of Washington and the Key to illustrate this. And you know what - NO ONE DISAGREED!!!

That's a pretty big leap of faith given the City has offered to renegotiate the lease. The problem from the City's side has always been Shultz wanted the tax payers to pay for the whole remodel......Shultz's group didn't want to put hardly any money into the deal themselves.

Ahem, kind Sir. I may be wrong here - but as I've led to have been told by my friends in the legal department at the NBA, the city and arena are willing to renegotiate the terms of the lease AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE DEAL, but not for the next two years. They would be morons to do beforehand - they make an ASSLOAD off the Sonics.

It sounds like you are spewing David Stern's lines again. The last thing Balmer needs is to put out a fake effort in order to "garner" goodwill in th community. Balmer has more goodwill in this community than he needs in 10 lifetimes.

Not many people have ever turned down positive PR. And even if he did it in good faith, he did it WAY WAY WAY too late. Bennett would have been more likely to sell when the position was still wavering. Balmer showed up when it was an all-but-sealed conclusion that the move was happening. I'd like to think Balmer thought he had a chance to get the team, but he's WAY too smart to actually believe that.

I wasn't bitching about "shaved payroll" mearly pointing out how you chose to leave the more important part of the story out, while claiming that the lease was the primarily reason the Sonics lost money this season.

Now this is just ridiculous. The lease IS the reason - do you know the Sonics make ZERO $'s off the Key Arenda suites? Do you have any idea how much of a revenue producer that is for other teams EVEN WHEN THEY ARE NOT THE OWNER OF THE ARENA? They also have to pay the highest per ticket costs in the league back to the arena. They have the 2nd worst sponsorship rights contract to the arena signage. For all the money the Sonics make for the arena, they barely get to keep any. Even if there were a sell-out every night there are pages of documents proving that this team WOULD NOT MAKE MONEY. What was proposed was remodeling for a stadium where they could keep the lease close to as is, and still make money. That was shot down and the city kept playing the "woe is me" card.

The NBA and Bennett aren't "good guys" in this situation. Bennett is certainly a slimeball - but Stern is being totally miscast here. Could he have handled the situation better? Absolutely. Listen - I don't work for the NBA anymore, and there are things about the NBA that I did not like that drove me to leave. But this I promise - Stern did not want to leave Seattle until the the point of "No One's Going to Make Money but the City and the Arena" was reached.

Stern's primary responsibility is to NOT look out for the cities. His primary responsibility is to look out for HIS OWNERS. You know, the guys who put up the hundreds of millions of dollars for the team. You may think that's sad - that's just the reality. He wants every team to make money and be in the best markets in the country. Seattle is a HUGE market - far better then OKC. BUT Schulz sold to Bennett. AND Bennett can not make money as is in Seattle. Please explain to me exactly what Stern should have done.

Brennan - I'm enjoying this discourse here, just trying to push across the perspective from the NBA that I've come to hear.

Bren - I'm not paying attention to your dumbfuck, off-the-cuff comments. You deserve three comments, and three comments only for your stupidity:
1) Do you have any fucking clue how much upfront money is necessary to build a stadium? Where the fuck are they going to put new stadium in Seattle?

2) The NBA doesn't approve the move of a team, the NBA owners do. Unfortunately it's not like that has been reported by every major sports news source in any medium in the country. Oh, wait, it has.

3)

Oh, and Brett if you're making "2x-3x then what it is in Seattle" and what you're getting in Seattle is a loss (which, frankly, I don't believe. There are entirely too many accounting tricks to pull off for me to buy that) then you're going to be getting 2-3x the loss.

I'm talking revenue. You knew that though, right? PLEASE tell me you knew that.

Tigers · Post by **Tigers** » Tue May 06, 2008 3:29 pm

If people believe this then I have a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you. Believe it or not the NBA would RATHER have a team in Seattle then OKC. It's a 10x better market - anyone in the NBA will tell you that. The problem is that the Key is not an NBA arena, and the team has the worst lease in the NBA. That's not a good combination. No person in their right mind would want to shell out the money to remodel if they can get the taxpayers to do it. It's a bit assholish and manipulative, but it's the truth that anyone would tell you. Bennett is a slimeball though, I'll certainly admit that.

David Stern workers for the owners. David Stern has an agenda as I noted above and it falls right into your statement that I bolded above.

BlueJays · Post by **BlueJays** » Tue May 06, 2008 3:34 pm

The NBA blows.

Thats all you need to know.

Tigers · Post by **Tigers** » Tue May 06, 2008 3:36 pm

No, but he sold to the first reasonable offer he got without allowing anyone else from the Seattle community to match the bid. He just made Bennett make a half-hearted promise to "try and make it work."

You changed the statement once, now you are going to have to change it a second time. Larry Ellison (Founder Oracle) made a higher offer to buy the Sonics from Shultz's group. They turned him down because he was openly stating he was purchasing the franchise to move it to San Jose. The only reason Shultz got the minority owners and enough votes to agree to sell to Bennett's group was because of Bennett's pledge to find an arena solution in Washington. In addition, Shultz is a douche because some of the minority owners in his group voted against the sale to Bennett because they were trying to put together a separate group to buy it from Shultz and keep it local, however Shultz new he could never get the price from his minority partners that he was getting from Bennett (who way overpaid for the franchise), thus he sold. Shultz is a slime ball, no doubt about that.

Shultz has a huge blackeye in the Seattle community because of his actions selling to Bennett. However, Aubrey McClendon may end up costing Bennett the Sonics with his public statement last year that the owners had no intention of ever owning/keeping the team in Seattle which goes directly against specific provisions in the sales agreement between Shultz's group and Bennett's group.

The trial is going to be entertaining and its the last thing that David Stern wants to see happen, however he's chosen to back his buddy Clay Bennett and I think its going to end up biting David Stern in the ass.

Tigers · Post by **Tigers** » Tue May 06, 2008 3:54 pm

Now this is just ridiculous. The lease IS the reason -

No, its actually not. The lease is bad, but like I said, the Sonics didn't lose money on a cash operating basis in the 2004/2005 season despite your claim to the contrary. The Sonics didn't lose $20 million dollars in cash money on an operating basis last season either, despite Clay Bennett's claims. Clay Bennett's group just bought the Sonics for $350 million. How much "Good Will" do you think Clay Bennet's group wrote off in NON-CASH amortization expense this past season? Want to bet its a bigger number than $20 million?

They would be morons to do beforehand - they make an ASSLOAD off the Sonics.

Actually, the City of Seattle does not make an "assload" off the Sonics. The City is making just barely enough off the Sonics to amoritize the debt that the City issued 12 years ago in order to fund the last remodel of Key Arena. Matter of fact, the City is having to utilize some of its General Revenue funds in order to support the Key Arena because it isn't making enough money right now to support itself.

Brett, most of the problems with Key Arena are due to the prior owner of the Sonics who negotiated the remodel and lease agreement 12 years ago. The prior owner didn't want Key Arena to be built any bigger, because he didn't want an NHL hockey team coming in and competing with him for entertainment dollars in the Seattle Market, so he made sure the remodel didn't include enough seating capacity for the NHL's minimum requirement to move a franchise here.

Yankees · Post by **Yankees** » Tue May 06, 2008 3:54 pm

You changed the statement once, now you are going to have to change it a second time.

I will freely admit that I miswrote the first time.

The only reason Shultz got the minority owners and enough votes to agree to sell to Bennett's group was because of Bennett's pledge to find an arena solution in Washington.

After the backlash with Ellison of course he was going make Bennett make that pledge.

The trial is going to be entertaining and its the last thing that David Stern wants to see happen, however he's chosen to back his buddy Clay Bennett and I think its going to end up biting David Stern in the ass.

I need you to understand this: HE'S NOT BACKING HIS "BUDDY" CLAY BENNETT. HE IS BACKING AN OWNER OF AN NBA TEAM. HE WOULD DO THIS WITH EVERY ONE OF HIS OWNERS.

It's not an "agenda" it's just the "right thing to do." Seattle can bitch and moan but they do not put the cash up (and subsequently lose the cash) that Bennett does. They just sit back and reap all the rewards. A company's responsibility first and foremost is to their shareholders. All the owners of NBA teams are the majority shareholders of the NBA. As CEO of the NBA, Stern is responsible to them - not each of their cities.

However, Aubrey McClendon may end up costing Bennett the Sonics with his public statement last year that the owners had no intention of ever owning/keeping the team in Seattle which goes directly against specific provisions in the sales agreement between Shultz's group and Bennett's group.

Uh, yeah. That was a really stupid move.

Tigers · Post by **Tigers** » Tue May 06, 2008 3:56 pm

Brennan - I'm enjoying this discourse here, just trying to push across the perspective from the NBA that I've come to hear.

Don'y worry Brett, I fully understand that the opinion you are pushing is fully stamped, endorsed, and supported by the NBA. They have their agenda and I fully expect your opinion to be in line with their agenda.

Tigers · Post by **Tigers** » Tue May 06, 2008 4:14 pm

It's not an "agenda" it's just the "right thing to do."

It is only the "right thing to do" if you are an owner or employee of the NBA where your goal is to maximize profits by sqeezing every cent you can from local taxpayers in your market. It is the complete wrong thing to do if you gave a shit about the local fan base in the City you as a corporation had been milking for the past 41 years.

Seattle can bitch and moan but they do not put the cash up (and subsequently lose the cash) that Bennett does. They just sit back and reap all the rewards.

Actually, they do "put the cash up". The City of Seattle is who issues the bonds to fund the arena. In addition, it is the City's taxpayers who end up paying for the facility that the pro-sports team gets to play in and reak huge profits from when they sell. Don't try selling that crap line that the owners are the "victims" here. That sob story don't fly in this neighborhood.

A company's responsibility first and foremost is to their shareholders. All the owners of NBA teams are the majority shareholders of the NBA. As CEO of the NBA, Stern is responsible to them - not each of their cities.

Thank you, which just goes to support the reality that Stern has an agenda along with every NBA owner, which is to milk as much money as possible from taxpayers in order to fund their arenas. There is no secret there.

In addition, a Company should have the intelligence to understand the provisions of the lease they are signing up for. Clay Bennett knew the conditions of the Key Arena lease before he bought the Sonics. He's going to be stuck in Key Arena for the next two seasons, as his attempt to buyout the lease failed and now he's losing badly in court to get out of the "Specific Performance" clause in the lease.

The Schultz lawsuit is going to look really bad for Clay and David Stern when they end up having to testify in court.

Yankees · Post by **Yankees** » Tue May 06, 2008 4:53 pm

Thank you, which just goes to support the reality that Stern has an agenda along with every NBA owner, which is to milk as much money as possible from taxpayers in order to fund their arenas. There is no secret there.

As crass as this may sound the name of this industry is "Sports Business." Each team is their own business. Their job is to make as much money as possible. Just like in real life some businesses are awesome, and some suck.

The responsibility of David Stern is to maximize revenue for the owners. The mystique of sports often overshadows the fact that it is a business - and it ALWAYS has been. I'd reco that everyone in this league read "Veeck As In Wreck."

I'm blessed that I get up every day and get to surround myself with sports - but it is a business. I'm not walking around Erie handing out tickets - I'm SELLING tickets. We're not here to be the cool, hip thing in town - we'd like to be, and we'll try to be - but we're here to make money for our owners, first and foremost.

I'm sorry that the people of Seattle are hurt by this - it's not a market that the NBA wants to lose. I'm not sure how many ways I can say this to make you believe that. If it were humanly possible the 30 NBA teams would exist in the 30 best markets in the USA. That's just not the reality. The reality is that the teams go to the people and places that can sustain them. At the moment, the guy who owns the Sonics believes he can make more money in OKC then in Seattle - and for the next amount of time - until changes are made to the arena AND the lease (NOT mutually exclusive, has to be done to both) - he's right.

I've been to Seattle to work with the Sonics and for pleasure - it's a beautiful city with plenty to offer. Unfortunately, right now, it does not own an NBA-caliber arena - and the person Schulz sold it to is not interested in putting the money up for an arena in Seattle. That's NOT the NBA or Stern's fault.

As I've said multiple times - Stern is responsible to the owners that make up his league, not the cities. The cities do not own ONE NBA team. Stern is the CEO of the NBA. His majority shareholders are the owners. I know I sound heartless when I say this, but because you buy season tickets for a team or root for a team, it does not give you any say in the proceedings. It's a business first. Frito-Lay will not make a chip, no matter how good it is, if the production costs exceed what they can sell it for. Same for sports...

It sucks to get invested in something and have it ripped away - I lost the Whalers when I was a kid and have hated hockey ever since. But the reality of the situation is that Hartford, like Erie, is not a city that can support a professional sports team. As is, Seattle is not equipped to support an NBA team - it sucks, but it's the truth.

Tigers · Post by **Tigers** » Tue May 06, 2008 5:11 pm

As is, Seattle is not equipped to support an NBA team - it sucks, but it's the truth.

Unfortunately for Clay Bennett, his Sonics are going to be playing in Seattle in that "not equipped to handle an NBA team", arena for the next two seasons. Clay should have understood his lease agreement a little better before signing on.

Tigers · Post by **Tigers** » Tue May 06, 2008 5:16 pm

As crass as this may sound the name of this industry is "Sports Business." Each team is their own business. Their job is to make as much money as possible. Just like in real life some businesses are awesome, and some suck.

I don't have any delusions regarding the NBA's "business model". I understand it very clearly. I don't however have any patient or respect for slimeball owners like Clay Bennett, who will lie, steal and cheat to get whatever they want.

Yankees · Post by **Yankees** » Tue May 06, 2008 5:18 pm

Unfortunately for Clay Bennett, his Sonics are going to be playing in Seattle in that "not equipped to handle an NBA team", arena for the next two seasons. Clay should have understood his lease agreement a little better before signing on.

Certainly don't disagree with that...

I wouldn't have high hopes for the trial though - it certainly won't make Bennett or Stern look good, but there's very little chance they stop the move to OKC - can only prolong it 2 years.

Yankees · Post by **Yankees** » Tue May 06, 2008 5:30 pm

I don't have any delusions regarding the NBA's "business model". I understand it very clearly. I don't however have any patient or respect for slimeball owners like Clay Bennett, who will lie, steal and cheat to get whatever they want.

I mean, I can't disagree with this. He's been very manipulative - but he also owns the goddamn team. Schulz sold it to him. The other owners ratified the move. This is getting off of our central argument: What on earth can Stern do about it? The NBA is getting painted all sorts of nasty colors, when all it's doing is supporting the people who keep their business upright. 28 out of 30 owners ratified the move, and 30 out of 30 (if I'm not mistaken) ratified Bennett's ownership. If Stern does ANYTHING against the owners it will look like he's undercutting the ENTIRE OWNERSHIP GROUP OF THE NBA. As fairy-tale great as it would be for Stern to ride in and force a sale to keep the Sonics in Seattle, he would be shooting himself and everyone who works for him at the NBA squarely in the foot. Maybe not even the foot - maybe in the head.

Tigers · Post by **Tigers** » Tue May 06, 2008 5:33 pm

Royals wrote:
Unfortunately for Clay Bennett, his Sonics are going to be playing in Seattle in that "not equipped to handle an NBA team", arena for the next two seasons. Clay should have understood his lease agreement a little better before signing on.
Certainly don't disagree with that...

I wouldn't have high hopes for the trial though - it certainly won't make Bennett or Stern look good, but there's very little chance they stop the move to OKC - can only prolong it 2 years.

A lot can happen in two years. I'm not counting on Howard Shultz winning his lawsuit, however I think David Stern is going to get drug into that one along with Clay Bennett and the rest of his ownership group (Hellow, Aubrey McClendon). I'd be willing to bet David Stern isn't going to come out of that lawsuit looking very good in the public's eye and at some point he's going to have to decide how far he wants to let this drag on and how bad he wants to let his buddy Clay Bennett make him look.

Plus, wihile it is nothing more than a rubber stamp ceremony, Clay does have to go back to the BOG every season and ask for relocation approval. Somewhat interesting is that Clay didn't get "unanomous" approval from the BOG to move......two owners voted against it. Somewhat more interesting, is that Clay Bennett applied for relocation rights for each of the next three years, however one NBA owner brought up the point that he could only get approval on a year by year basis, due the to NBA bylaws. Not such a big deal given the "typical" rubber stamp approval that the BOG gives, but the somewhat interesting part is who the NBA owner was that pointed this out during the meeting.

Anyways, I don't usually go to the NBA games or spend much if any money on the NBA product, but it is going to be enjoyable to watch a slimeball like Clay Bennett bleed for the next two years and just by the chance that he has screwed up even more than what has already been made public, I'd thouroughly enjoy seeing Clay Bennett stripped of the Sonics by the Federal Court judge in Seattle as a result of a breach of his sales contract with Shultz. That would just be icing on the cake.

Yankees · Post by **Yankees** » Tue May 06, 2008 5:44 pm

I'd be willing to bet David Stern isn't going to come out of that lawsuit looking very good in the public's eye and at some point he's going to have to decide how far he wants to let this drag on and how bad he wants to let his buddy Clay Bennett make him look.

Stern can strongly suggest that Bennett sell - hell, he may even be doing it - but he can't make him. Stern doesn't own the team, Bennett does. The league makes money off of the teams, the teams are in existence because of their owners, thus the NBA is responsible to the owners first.

I'd thouroughly enjoy seeing Clay Bennett stripped of the Sonics by the Federal Court judge in Seattle as a result of a breach of his sales contract with Shultz. That would just be icing on the cake.

Here's a sneak preview - they're not gonna win. Even if it's upheld in Seattle, there's no way they win all the appeals.

Tigers · Post by **Tigers** » Tue May 06, 2008 5:47 pm

If Stern does ANYTHING against the owners it will look like he's undercutting the ENTIRE OWNERSHIP GROUP OF THE NBA. As fairy-tale great as it would be for Stern to ride in and force a sale to keep the Sonics in Seattle, he would be shooting himself and everyone who works for him at the NBA squarely in the foot. Maybe not even the foot - maybe in the head.

The question will remain, how long will Stern and the other owners sit on the sidelines, while Clay Bennett continues to make, more specifically Stern, but also the other owners look bad in the public's eye. How long will they want to sit there and have the league and the league's reputation drug through the mud in the court system? You gotta believe that the emails that have been released to the public already are only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the underhanded dialogue/dealings between Clay Bennett, his ownership group and discussions with David Stern.

As I said above, Clay Bennett better improve his "lawyerin' up", because he's going up against a City and group of attorney's that have been down this very road twice before. The first time winning a future expansion team that became the Mariners and the second time, preventing the NFL team from leaving town.

Hey, Seattle may end up losing the Sonics in two years, but its going to get a lot uglier for Clay Bennett and David Stern before this whole thing is over with.